remember

Memory Review

Goal

Review the user's memory landscape and produce a clear report of proposed changes, grouped by action type. Do NOT apply changes - present proposals for user approval.

Steps

1. Gather all memory layers

Read CLAUDE.md and CLAUDE.local.md from the project root (if they exist). Your auto-memory content is already in your system prompt - review it there. Note which team memory sections exist, if any.

Success criteria: You have the contents of all memory layers and can compare them.

2. Classify each auto-memory entry

For each substantive entry in auto-memory, determine the best destination:

Destination	What belongs there	Examples
CLAUDE.md	Project conventions and instructions for Claude that all contributors should follow	"use bun not npm", "API routes use kebab-case", "test command is bun test", "prefer functional style"
CLAUDE.local.md	Personal instructions for Claude specific to this user, not applicable to other contributors	"I prefer concise responses", "always explain trade-offs", "don't auto-commit", "run tests before committing"
Team memory	Org-wide knowledge that applies across repositories (only if team memory is configured)	"deploy PRs go through #deploy-queue", "staging is at staging.internal", "platform team owns infra"
Stay in auto-memory	Working notes, temporary context, or entries that don't clearly fit elsewhere	Session-specific observations, uncertain patterns

Important distinctions:

• CLAUDE.md and CLAUDE.local.md contain instructions for Claude, not user preferences for external tools (editor theme, IDE keybindings, etc. don't belong in either)
• Workflow practices (PR conventions, merge strategies, branch naming) are ambiguous - ask the user whether they're personal or team-wide
• When unsure, ask rather than guess

Success criteria: Each entry has a proposed destination or is flagged as ambiguous.

3. Identify cleanup opportunities

Scan across all layers for:

• Duplicates: Auto-memory entries already captured in CLAUDE.md or CLAUDE.local.md → propose removing from auto-memory
• Outdated: CLAUDE.md or CLAUDE.local.md entries contradicted by newer auto-memory entries → propose updating the older layer
• Conflicts: Contradictions between any two layers → propose resolution, noting which is more recent

Success criteria: All cross-layer issues identified.

4. Present the report

Output a structured report grouped by action type:

1. Promotions - entries to move, with destination and rationale
2. Cleanup - duplicates, outdated entries, conflicts to resolve
3. Ambiguous - entries where you need the user's input on destination
4. No action needed - brief note on entries that should stay put

If auto-memory is empty, say so and offer to review CLAUDE.md for cleanup.

Success criteria: User can review and approve/reject each proposal individually.

Rules

• Present ALL proposals before making any changes
• Do NOT modify files without explicit user approval
• Do NOT create new files unless the target doesn't exist yet
• Ask about ambiguous entries - don't guess